Jump to content

R-27ET right after R-27ER


sylkhan

Recommended Posts

The missile already got the proportional navigation information from the IRST or Radar. The proportional Navigation doesn’t happen at the moment the missile leave the rail on the track I commented to you. Track 1 on the Post 32 in this thread.

 

PS: should we make a video instead of the track?

 

 

No, there's no PN info from radar or IRST. It only cues the seeker so that it's looking at the target and attempts to lock onto it. PN is the guidance method, and there is zero input to it from the aircraft once the IRH seeker is tracking.

 

If you want more interesting IRH guidance, you have to move into 2000's-2010's missiles.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is so, really, then this would be APN parameters being transferred to the ET somehow ... and they really shouldn't be.

 

So is it impossible that T/ET would have a capability to receive information of target distance and speed, and use that information relative to own predicted speed to calculate a intercept point and update it by assuming that target maintains its speed even when it turns heading?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After launch, the missile begins guides by proportional navigation.

 

So, the Su-27S doesn't inform the T/ET by any means with any information of the range for the missile, nor the vector or speed?

 

1) The missile does not receive anything else from the launching aircraft than "Look at X,Y and lock on".

2) Once the missile has a lock, it will inform the launching platform "I have a lock!".

3) When the pilot launches the missile, it will go off from the rail only maintaining lock.

4) After leaving the rail the missile starts to measure the target movement in X,Y coordinates by using its seeker.

5) Only with this information it gathers itself, it will start to calculate proportional navigation?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Proportional Navigation is purely angular

 

It works on the principle that the missile was launched within its kinematic envelope and will always have closure over its target

 

 

All the seeker now aims to do is keep the line of sight rotation rate at zero so it is in the same constant spot of the missile reticle at some point it will collide with the target

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it impossible that T/ET would have a capability to receive information of target distance and speed, and use that information relative to own predicted speed to calculate a intercept point and update it by assuming that target maintains its speed even when it turns heading?

 

 

There's no evidence that the 27T, 73, 9M- Python 4- etc do any of this. You lock the seeker onto the target and it does the job all by itself via good old PN without any real notion of time-to-go etc that could be added to the PN algorithm.

 

 

PN is mathematical algorithm in the game, purely so, but onboard a missile the filters are pre-calculated, and the missile's job is to just zero out the LOS rate. It's basically something like amplify this voltage by so much and command the fins accordingly in that direction. More modern missiles may have far more processing tricks up their sleeves, but it's all still based on that very principle.

 

 

You could substitute IR intensity for closure but IMHO that's seriously unreliable.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no evidence that the 27T, 73, 9M- Python 4- etc do any of this. You lock the seeker onto the target and it does the job all by itself via good old PN without any real notion of time-to-go etc that could be added to the PN algorithm.

 

 

PN is mathematical algorithm in the game, purely so, but onboard a missile the filters are pre-calculated, and the missile's job is to just zero out the LOS rate. It's basically something like amplify this voltage by so much and command the fins accordingly in that direction. More modern missiles may have far more processing tricks up their sleeves, but it's all still based on that very principle.

 

 

You could substitute IR intensity for closure but IMHO that's seriously unreliable.

 

The R-27T have not the same PN method. Manufacturer explain that well. While manufacturer already confirm there is updated proportional navigation method, how come you want contradict the manufacturer? The zero evidence is made by you.


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R-27T have not the same PN method. Manufacturer explain that well.

 

No he doesn't.

 

 

While manufacturer already confirm there is updated proportional navigation method, how come you want contradict the manufacturer? The zero evidence is made by you.

This means literally nothing. What does 'updated' tell you about the algorithm? Is it like your fantasy where they added all this fancy stuff, or did they just tweak the N in PN?

 

Where is the equation? Where's YOUR evidence? You have nothing, and I don't think you even understand the beginning of what PN even looks like, never-mind its many forms.

 

You've taken the word 'updated' to mean who-knows what, and it literally means nothing. Updated compared to what? What was updated?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not be on top the manufacturer description. Your opinions worth absolutely nothing. Specially you are focused on change what is officially described. As you are irrelevant person in all about Russian missiles features. All what you said against an official description is worthless.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not be on top the manufacturer description. Your opinions worth absolutely nothing. Specially you are focused on change what is officially described. As you are irrelevant person in all about Russian missiles features. All what you said against an official description is worthless.

 

 

Ok, so tell everyone what 'updated' means. And then prove that it is what you say it means. Go ahead, be relevant.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so tell everyone what 'updated' means. And then prove that it is what you say it means. Go ahead, be relevant.

 

As you are the person contradicting an official statement. You must prove your words. The ball is on the side of developers. You have nothing to say about an official statement.


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've taken the word 'updated' to mean who-knows what, and it literally means nothing. Updated compared to what? What was updated?

 

If "updated" means nothing, then the "nothing" means something else than "nothing".

What was updated and compared to what, if not to old/previous one?

 

If they claim "This has updated navigation system", then it is not anymore the same as it was previously. And so on it can not be "nothing" as you claim because it would mean that there was never any navigation system to begin with, that could have been updated in the first place.

 

So simply put, with that logic the R-27T/ET doesn't exist because it doesn't have any kind navigation system in it that could have been updated.

 

As well it is now fairly clear that officially nothing is known about the R-27T/ET navigation or guidance systems, so it is nothing more than a fantasy in DCS World, and so on it can be something completely different as no one seems to know what it really has and what it doesn't have. So everything it has now is based to a faith and believes.

 

Does the R-27T/ET missile exist? Yes. Anyone should be able find evidence for that.

Does the R-27T/ET missile have a proportional navigation guidance? One of the manufacturers says Yes.

Does the R-27T/ET missile have its proportional navigation updated? One of the manufacturers says Yes.

 

What there is, is evidence that it is so, and it is not information that how it has been updated, but it is sufficient evidence for changes in it compared the previous one.

 

If someone can't come up with the evidence that specifically shows that no modifications has ever been done, then there is no such evidence to counter one of the manufacturers claim of updated navigation systems in it.

 

Such a evidence is not conclusive evidence that what there exactly is updated but that is not the topic here, as claim was "R-27 missile has not received any updated since the original design" and there is sufficient evidence that newer missiles has updated proportional navigation.

 

Now we can either just start to bleed for the ignorance, or we can accept that more evidence is required for it that what has been changed really and how, if at all. Otherwise nothing can be done to the R-27T/ET missile in DCS World, and likely if there is no evidence for what it really has, it needs to be removed from the DCS World.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im still curious pepin, what exactly do you want from this upgraded PN?

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680 (i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 24 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im still curious pepin, what exactly do you want from this upgraded PN?

 

He has not made any claims that WHAT it should be. The argument was that ED is in the understanding that R-27 has not received any updates, revisiting, upgrades or any modifications/changes since the early 1980 when it was approved for service and was in service at 1983.

 

The R-27 missile became the main BVR missile in the Soviet Union and Russian air forces, responsible to defend the whole country against anything that any possible enemy (designs of Su-27 and MiG-29 were to counter best of the best Western Fighters, Bombers and Cruise Missiles etc) could use when attacking to USSR/Russia.

 

That is now 37 years old missile in service even today, slowly to be replaced by a new missiles (again, as some sources say a already obsolete/inferior R-77 from 1982, updated ones like R-77-1) these days. Meanwhile Russia kept developing completely new radars, with new capabilities and features, new sensors like better IRST etc.

 

So how come that a over 37 year old design never saw any changes?

 

There are two choices really:

 

1) The missile is more than "good enough" with even the new radars and all to counter current threats.

2) The missile was requiring so big changes and was so terrible that it was not sensible to perform any updates at all in those years but required a completely new missiles to replace it. So lack of "unlimited funding" for a new R-77 missile the Russian military was required to carry basically "a obsolete missile".

 

The question is not that what all kind updates and new features a R-27 might have had. But has it had any or not. And if it has had something, then it is requiring to investigate and find out more that what those has been.

 

What Pepin is doing, is question the current R-27T/ET behavior in engagement. Basically a engineers logic to build the missile in the first place.

 

How does the weapon manufacturing happens?

- You have a problem, and you need to find a solution to it.

What is a missile purpose?

- Get close to a target and explode. Nothing more or less.

What is purpose of a fighter?

- To destroy threat before it can destroy you or target you are protecting.

 

Why would you improve a fighter capabilities to:

1) detect targets further

2) track more targets

 

Only to maintain your old missile that renders all your other advancements obsolete?

 

Why would you improve anything in the radar, fighter or in anything, if your primary A-A missile is going to first chaff it sees, first flare it sees, can't reach the target with its most optimal flight trajectory for the situation?

 

Either the engineers who designed and built the R-27 missile were either very smart ones, or very dumb ones. And then they had either very stupid military leadership or very smart one, as they didn't order any new updates to R-27 missile that supposedly rendered their new aircraft to be just practice targets for any enemy as they were not threats to newer and updated threats.

 

The most heard argument is that some people come up is "Soviets didn't have money...."

Another is that "But Soviets had a nuclear weapons as threat...."

 

As it is nothing more than a escape goat for the question "Why Soviet/Russian engineers were so stupid/smart....".

 

In 1991 when AIM-120 came to service, it was to that point only a R-27 vs AIM-7. And R-27 had huge edge to AIM-7 because you could launch R-27 from further distance by using aircraft altitude and speed to extend the flight. Why you couldn't do the same with the AIM-7? No datalink. AIM-7 was severely limited by its seeker lock-on range.

 

Now, is it possible that Soviets didn't know nothing about AIM-120 development before that, and not started to develop an counter for it? Again, R-77 development was started 10 years before AIM-120 was in service. The pre-AMRAAM, a "Sparrow II" was cancelled in the late 50's because technology was not there to make the ARH, what was one of the reasons why Phoenix was designed for F-6 (the fighter of A-6) to be used as fleet defender, and then to be added to F-111. But later a F-14 was built for the purpose to utilize the concept and missile project results. Does the Soviets have the answer for that? R-40/R-33 projects, MiG-25, MiG-31 etc.

 

But again, why to carry and maintain an obsolete missile for over 30 years if it is not up to the task, to destroy the threat before it can destroy you or your defended target?

 

Since the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 and reports of R-77 being in use at 2015(?) is 24 year period, that by some claiming was era when no money was put to develop a new weapons.

Yet, in that time Russia has developed multiple new radars, new aircrafts and all. But no one would have wanted to invest any money to existing R-27 missile seekers? The missile was in use, it was the primary A-A weapon....

 

Through the history military aviation has developed two parts together as a group, a aircraft and a weapon. If other doesn't match the other performance, it gets redesigned, rebuilt or replaced.

 

Why didn't Soviets/Russians do anything to R-27 if it was so bad? It was originally designed to be modular. Four parts, seeker, guidance section, warhead and rocket motor. It is said that you can swap seekers with the same missile, but why is the seeker required to be swapped with the guidance section, that as well maintains usually the warhead? Basically saying it is just two part missile, front section and rear section. Where front is seeker+guidance+warhead and rear is extra fuel+rocket motor. As no one is even considering that seeker + guidance sections would be exchangeable across.

 

And if you have a module missile, why you don't use that for improve the development and the logistics and all? Is there a problem in the seeker? You update that seeker head and run a project to exchange old seeker heads to new one.

Is there a problem in guidance section? You exchange those to new ones...

How about engine problems? You maintain seeker, guidance and just fix the engine part.

 

So based to many claims, one can come to conclusion that R-27 modularity was only meant for logistics purpose. That you can fit a one 4 meter long missile to a 1.5 meters or so wide box?

 

But not that, if you need a extended range that you use same seeker, guidance and warhead but swap rocket motor to longer one. Or if you need a datalink guidance that you swap guidance section from non-datalink version to such. Or you need IR seeker instead SARH or maybe ARH or ARM. Maybe you need a new warhead, you swap that part to new kind?

As it is silly that there are photographs of R-27 with both combinations with various warheads. A SARH seeker without datalink and with datalink. And IR seeker with datalink and without datalink. There is as well ARM with and without datalink section.

As ain't that just some stupidity that someone just assembled the multi-part missile in wrong order and no engineer ever thought about that and made even the screw holes to be different places so no idiot can lock the wrong seeker to wrong guidance section?

 

It is just amazing how stupid so many engineers are who are responsible developing new weapons? (Yes, the gay-bomb was real... The pioneer dolphins were as well...).

It is the same thing how all the military secrets should be written to all pilot books and material that large group of people have access to... And every ground personnel should be trained as well for all possible scenarios and ways...

As well that every single person in the manufacturer PR department knows exactly what they are writing about?

Why it is easy to contact the official author and ask about the correct information. Right?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is one of the best A-A missiles now days. 3 variants (is what they declared for export) made to be ready for the most hard air combats conditions. The no Russian friendly here are claiming leaking information shared by Ukrainian and ex Warsaw Pact users of the first batch serie of this missiles. So the people against Russian technology in this forum are trying to represent the old head seeker Ukrainian made like the forever ever only R-27 in the world. After Soviet Union Collapse one of the first priorities in 21 century was update the missiles for every system Ukrainian share with Russia. Including Buk, S-300, R-27 and so on.

 

The information you find now days in the russian export company for missiles is what Russia currently export. This information and description is something important and in many regards is not 100% implemented in DCS. So to be fair, something should be made. How long we gonna have R-27 missiles with missed features those have been already represented by the official manufacturer?


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice fantasy novel you wrote there, bud. I would advise you to go talk to some REAL people who are in the know and read up on history and economics.

 

Although, I prefer to stay away from non-argument discussion... but can a REAL person considered Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton?

 

Whose opinion is to quote the interview: "Within its kinematic capability, the AA-10A is a very good missile but its maximum employment range was a real disappointment." and he did employ it "We fired 11 AA-10As and 12 Archers in varying scenarios. We learned a lot about the radar and the missiles. That we conducted this exploitation was not classified. It made the local newspapers. The results, however, are classified."

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

Current implementation of AA-10A has is limits in old modeling and will be improved hopefully soon, until then, I find discussing the missile a bit fruitless till we see how it changes.

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 36T passive infrared homing heat allows homing of missile to aircrafts, cruise missiles, Drones,...

Its has means to received data from radar or optical locator :)

 

Ok, if i launch a R-27ER and right after i launch a R-27ET, the ET should lock on the big heat emission of ER, correct ?

 

So it will follow the path of r-27ER, till it detect a bigger heat source (aircraft).

 

In that way we can launch missiles by pair and optimize PK.

 

Why this doesn't work in the game, the ET does not lock on the ER heat emission ?

 

First, I'd like you to show me a real world tactics manual describing this technique. Russian, American or otherwise. I'm pretty sure real world pilots don't try to use these kind gimmicks during dogfight?

 

Second, Your assumption is flawed regarding the second missile finding a "Bigger Heat Source". Heat source is relative and subject to change.

 

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to handle several different Soviet and American MANPADS in a training environment. (Real weapons, no motors or warheads) I can tell you for fact what the seekers REGULARLY locked on to...was NOT the "bigger heat source (aircraft)."

 

Remember, Missiles don't just look for heat...they look for specific heat in a specific range on the IR spectrum.


Edited by Sierra99

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although, I prefer to stay away from non-argument discussion... but can a REAL person considered Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton?

 

Whose opinion is to quote the interview: "Within its kinematic capability, the AA-10A is a very good missile but its maximum employment range was a real disappointment." and he did employ it "We fired 11 AA-10As and 12 Archers in varying scenarios. We learned a lot about the radar and the missiles. That we conducted this exploitation was not classified. It made the local newspapers. The results, however, are classified."

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

Current implementation of AA-10A has is limits in old modeling and will be improved hopefully soon, until then, I find discussing the missile a bit fruitless till we see how it changes.

 

We are not discussing here the R-27 first batch export version. If you want talk about those missiles you should request a new Forum about MiG-29A and talk there about all the information given to west and been shared by ex Warsaw Pact members.

 

We are talking about the official information shown in the missile export corporation from Russian Federation the original manufacturer and only capable to manufacture such technologies in the Ex USSR members.


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like you to show me a real world tactics manual describing this technique.

 

I will write one and send it to you, but it will be in FRENCH.

 

 

About R27 IR seeker (36T), in one of my books, i can read :

 

"It has means to received target data from the radar or optical locator"

 

Since my english is crap, what does that means ? :)

36T.thumb.png.655f617ec03ee2c6bec050d868e50afe.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just means it is cued by the other systems to look in a specific direction. There's nothing else to this - it's the same idea as pointing a sidewinder of MAGIC with your radar (or helmet). The seeker slews to that angle and that's it.

 

The whole question of the IRH operation was answered very long ago (in the 2000s, era of LOMAC) by an actual WCS technician who pointed out that the specific WCS (Su-27, MiG-29) won't generate any data or data links for the IRH missiles at all.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The whole question of the IRH operation was answered very long ago (in the 2000s, era of LOMAC) by an actual WCS technician who pointed out that the specific WCS (Su-27, MiG-29) won't generate any data or data links for the IRH missiles at all.

 

That's quite interesting.

This always made me wonder: what would be the actual max range at which EOS can track the target, or should I say give the ranging information. I am guessing that a laser is used for these purposes, but I can't imagine a laser beam (might be wrong here) getting a range at 30+ km.

From what I understand, ET is limited in range by its seeker primarily.

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. The laser is limited to about 10km according to the manuals, beyond this is becomes unreliable so the radar is used to range.

 

As for the EOS detection range, I don't recall the numbers - suffice it to say more modern ones can see further, and in any case because of the huge aperture they can all generally see further than the missile can.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite interesting.

This always made me wonder: what would be the actual max range at which EOS can track the target, or should I say give the ranging information. I am guessing that a laser is used for these purposes, but I can't imagine a laser beam (might be wrong here) getting a range at 30+ km.

From what I understand, ET is limited in range by its seeker primarily.

 

IRST work together with radar. Doesn’t need a laser to get range. IRST for first generation MiG-29 was very simple and have not the same modes than later upgrades.

 

IRST for first generation MiG-29 doesn’t have the same features in sensors and radar.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. The laser is limited to about 10km according to the manuals, beyond this is becomes unreliable so the radar is used to range.

 

As for the EOS detection range, I don't recall the numbers - suffice it to say more modern ones can see further, and in any case because of the huge aperture they can all generally see further than the missile can.

 

Now I am even more confused. :D

In order for the system to issue a launch authorization of an R-27ET, I guess, it needs to know the range to the target. So far so good. Now, if the laser is limited to much less range, btw I also think 10km sounds about right, than the ET's seeker this has to be compensated by the radar. This means that at ranges longer than the laser ranger can cover the radar has to be ON, ie. a stealthy (no-radar) attack at ranges longer than 10km, is not possible since the other A/C's RWR will pick up the radiation.

 

Am I understanding this right?

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Stealthy attack' with reasons why the system exists, which is to back-up the radar in a heavy ECM environment.

 

There's going to be very little stealth in a real environment with AWACS and other things looking at you - stealthy attacks are opportunistic and have more to do with tactics and untargetted entries where radar on/off probably isn't going to matter quite that much.

 

In any case, in DCS with all the lone-wolfing going around and people's inability to generally use their radars well all of this changes, but, just saying. DCS reasons aren't real life reasons for stuff :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...